AIBU to be shocked by public celebration of Michael Jackson?

[2021x]

Now the MJ film is out my social media feed is flooded with people doing the dances and talking about the movie etc. My local cinema is holding special events and screenings.

I personally have no doubt that he was a predatory paedophile. All the signs are there, especially how he talks about how he would never hurt a child and sharing a bed with them is the "most loving thing you can do in the world". He manipulated the world into thinking he had a "child-like persona" but was able to manage a music career worth millions... which someone who is naive would never be able to manage.

I also do not judge people who enjoy his music. It was very popular at the time, and would be associated with all types nostaligic memories. I listen to problematic artists all the time, but I don't pretend that they weren't abusive.

AIBU to be astounded that any business/media outlet would be seen dead even associating with him let alone celebrating such a horrifically abusive man.

What was proved against Saville beyond reasonable doubt?

And for those questioning why victims engage with their abusers, this is very usual behaviour, Ive known women go on to marry or have children with their abusers and then allow their own children to be abused by their abusers too.

Multiple victims telling stories which made sense and fitted in with known timelines and added up to create a pattern of abuse, and multiple adults corroborating the children's stories. Everyone knew what was going on. It just wasn't mentioned. With MJ, there's no such certainty.

I didn't say anything about the alleged victims continuing to engage with him.

They could leave evidence and witnesses, but there's no guarantee of that either. And witnesses have said that they've seen things anyway.

There's no evidence to suggest that he had an inappropriate understanding of adult/child boundaries, that's just a theory that some have.

I've asked earlier on this thread do people think grooming is ok as long as it doesn't lead to anything sexual? It's still grooming regardless. Grooming is also what you do before it leads to sexual activity, perhaps with those kids he never felt 'safe' enough to escalate it. There would surely be a point where they think it's ok to escalate it and before that it's still just 'grooming'. People have been arrested and convicted for 'grooming' before there's been any physical contact, you can even see that in those sting operations even when the child is fictional.

Sean Lennon and Corey Feldman have both said the behaviour was harmful, Corey Feldman said 'He did real damage in my overall life..Michael would sit and talk to me for hours and he would listen. Then he would get bored. The biggest thing that Michael's done to children is befriending the ones that are in need and then abandoning them." Sean Lennon said similar but the music video heavily implies molestation.

Why would a paedophile groom a child and then not SA them? If it wasn't sexual he still treated those boys like he was in a relationship with them, I said earlier that there's asexual people who would say they are heterosexual and asexual people who would say that they're gay so they still have a type for who they want a relationship with, I would imagine it would also follow that there's people interested in children for relationships who are asexual.

I do think he did sexually abuse children though but if he didn't abuse any of these boys then presumably it's because he thought there was a greater risk with those particular boys. Plus he also had other boys he was abusing at the same time.

Yep. I was friends with a girl when I was a young teenager and she was being groomed/abused by a much older man. She knew it was abuse at the time and when she first told me about it. They're still together now and if you met them you'd think they were the most suited couple ever, he always looked young so you wouldn't immediately be able to tell he's older either.
They're so alike that I often wondered if she took on his personality in a way because he had been grooming her for so long, when I first met her it was already ongoing so I didn't know her before the grooming.

He made a pass at me a couple of times so I stopped going to her house then. I would normally tell the girl if that happened but I knew in her case after everything that she wouldn't leave him so there was no point.

Yeah and Aaron Carter drowned in his bathtub whilst addicted to/using some serious drugs. So I’m not sure he wasn’t a troubled lad.

How was it beyond all reasonable doubt with Saville, thats a legal term

I didnt say you mentioned victims still being in touch with MJ I was answering othre points on the thread.

Its incredibly common and Im afraid Ive worked with adult women who are still being abused by their own fathers/brothers/uncles by way of 'being in a relationship ' with them and some go on to have children with them too.

What makes you say Amy Winehouse was abusive? I’ve not seen any evidence of that at all in anything about her personal or professional life.

@kkloo Sean Lennon hasn't said that the behaviour was "harmful". As far as I'm aware, this is the only interview he's given about Jackson:

https://exclaim.ca/music/article/sean_ono_lennon_remembers_playing_at_michael_jacksons_neverland_ranch_as_a_child

And how you can assert that there is a suggestion in the music video that Jackson sexually abused Lennon is beyond me.

No he's spoken about him some more, he said nothing illegal happened to him but there was something odd going on and he still doesn't know what it was.

Did you watch the music video? because it's seriously disturbing and made me feel physically unwell, even more so than watching leaving neverland.

Feel free to post a link.

I did, yes.

Yes I agree, it's concerning language either way. I just think we should stick to the absolute facts of what was said though.

Right well if you did I don't know how you wouldn't think that anyone could assert sexual abuse from that music video. It's sickening and many are in agreement.

https://www.npr.org/sections/allsongs/2016/06/03/480451184/all-songs-1-sean-lennons-surreal-ode-to-michael-jacksons-pet-chimp-bubbles

He also commented on his facebook page that the point was they were all discarded like bubbles when they were too old. Not scrolling back to look for that for you though!

Hugo Boss i believe.

I always ask myself if the people who were saying he wasn't guilty would permit their child son to spend time alone with MJ?

I don't really care that adults are going to see the movie or even that they made it. My confusion is about why it is so heavily celebrated. I wonder if it is like that thing that scammers do where deliberately make spelling mistakes or mispronounce words to see who will either tolerate it or not recognise it as people most likely to fall for the scam.

Up and down the country paedophiles are looking to see which people with children are overlooking the very obvious signs of paedophilia- targeting boys without present fathers, the grooming of the lonely mothers- listen to the tapes in "Finding Neverland", looking for boys who wanted to perform- something he could facilitate, the amusement park in the back garden, the effort ito get them alone, removing safe boundaries by sleeping beside them or next to them, the huge payout following concrete evidence of MJ being naked (photographs), the open admission that sharing a bed with a child is "loving that child, the porn magazines in areas where children where able to access them. The people more likely to overlook that are more likely to be suscepible to grooming and ultimately abuse.

So, not "harmful", as you said earlier today. That was your opinion, just like many other people on here who try to pass off their opinions as facts, or opinions of others.

His description of Michaels behaviour showed that he recognised it was harmful, unless your 'opinion' is that he thought the habit of discarding kids once they got too old wasn't harmful at all.
His friend that was there also with Sean Lennon said they watched porn at 10 years old and MJ just said 'oh stop that, it's so silly'

Had a type, didn't he?

I note that James Safechuck claimed he was abused multiple times in a room in the Neverland train station between 1988 and 1992 but it wasn’t even built then.

Ok so you're right 🙄

And even if you did know the family - why should that change your view? Often abusers lie and paint themselves in a different light and some family turn a blind eye or just support them regardless.

MJ was cleared by the court but that no way means he was innocent - just that he was able to pay his way out and use his power and wealth to scare others to change their stories.

They didn't point to him because he was black but because he was a weird fucking abuser who openly admitted to sleeping with children. One child was even able to identify distinguished marks about his genitals. He was a child rapist but you can go on and try and avoid this by bringing up other disgusting people to look at instead.

What we should do is look at them all - MJ included.

I honestly hope that many of these people who avidly believe he is innocent do not have kids - if you think it's okay for a grown man to groom and sleep with children, god knows what else you think I'd safe for children.

You’ve worked with multiple adult women who had children fathered by their biological relatives? Not doubting, just making sure I understand you.

What bothers me most is that those who believe MJ was not a paedophile are effectively saying they do not believe the children, any of them, who have come forward with allegations.

I didn’t think MJ was cleared in court, the case didn’t go to court as they settled and the boy wouldn’t testify.

Did we ever have more evidence (other than victim statements) against Saville?

It’s very disturbing.

@BreakfastClub80
There was a trial in 2005 in relation to a different boy, Gavin Avirzo.

So you don’t know why he went on trial - he was on trial for abusing Gavin Arvizo, who did testify.

And yes, much more evidence against Saville.

Yes.